Appeal No. 2001-2669
Application 09/043,950
rejection and answer (Paper Nos. 8 and 14) for the respective
positions of the appellants and the examiner with regard to the
merits of these rejections.2
DISCUSSION
I. The 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection
Crossman discloses a hypodermic needle assembly comprising a
stainless steel needle 11 having a obliquely cut, skin-piercing
end 18, a molded plastic needle hub 12 having a central bore
firmly bonded to the needle, and a plurality of molded plastic
depth adjusters 15. Of the relationship between these elements,
Crossman teaches that
[i]n the example being described, the needle 11
projects 12.5 mm from the end of the hub 12 and it is
not easy to control the depth to which the needle is
inserted in the patient.
Accordingly, . . . a depth adjuster 15 can be
fitted around the hub as shown in FIG. 2, which shows
that a cylindrical end 19 of the adjuster extends
beyond the hub towards the point of the needle and is
spaced from it and effectively limits the extent to
which the needle can be inserted in the patient. . . .
Alternative adjusters 15 are provided with
different lengths of the cylindrical portion 19 so
that, by choosing the appropriate adjuster, and fitting
it over the hub before the needle is inserted, the
2 According to the examiner (see page 6 in the answer), the
inclusion of claim 2 in the statement of the 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
rejection set forth in the final rejection stems from a
typographical error.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007